Some Stones fans are peculiarly obsessed with this, and I while I enjoy reliving it as memories, I do not have an obsessive need to LIVE in that time.

Yeah, the Stones had a hotshot lead guitarist for a few years, but that fit into the time when it was fashionable to have a good-looking guitar god.

So, after five brief years, he decided to quit, and has since eked out an existence.

Let me put my premise this way-- Taylor din't make the Stones great -- the Stones made Taylor great -- when hwe quit, he sealed his own fate.


Let me repeat this to guys like Open-G : when Taylor quit the Stones, he sealed HIS fate, not the band's.

Your bleatings about his mastery don't cut anything with me, man. If Mick and Keith hadn't written those songs, your man Mick T would've had nothing to play with.

On his own, he's nothing. THIS is the part you can't reconcile yourself with, isn't it?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-25 02:54 by bassplayer617.

"On his own, he's nothing. THIS is the part you can't reconcile yourself with, isn't it?"

That is your PREMISE.

Many here have seen him "on his own" and consider him to be still very, very, special.

Is that the part you can't reconcile yourself with?

Is it the part that, actually, people like OpenG might be right, that Stones in which Mick Taylor was a part, were just the best effing band in the world.

I've seen him in the Stones. I've experienced the difference. And the boots will back us up.

But, Hey........ they are still not a bad band......they did not die a death when Taylor left.

So, why the hell do you have to open this old chestnut again?

To annoy Bjornulf?

Oh, alright then!


ps I presume you have not seen Taylor yourself. If I recall correctly, you've hardly ever seen the Stones. Perhaps once on this tour?

You are asserting that Mick Taylor didn't influence the Stones. So how come much of the Stones live set is still, to this day, made up from material recorded during his very brief period with the band?

Your second point is that Taylor, outside of the Stones, is "nothing". So what then, about the the solo careers of say, Brian May, Jimmy Page or even Pete Townshend? For that matter, what about Jagger and Richards' respective solo careers which have hardly registered a blip with anyone outside of hardcore Stones fans either.

So what exactly is your point?

Spoken like a true Grouse!

ps this bird just touched down from the winged island. Now to retire to nest. Greetings to the drey-dweller too.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-25 04:24 by Mr Wibble.

So u think the Stones plucked him out of obscurity and said" we'll make you famous". You are nothing now, but if u join we'll teach you to play that there guitar and you'll soon be a great lead guitarist!


You're a nutbag buddy.

micks only problem is that he is the biggest idiot in the world for quitting,
other than that he is fine

melillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> micks only problem is that he is the biggest idiot
> in the world for quitting,
> other than that he is fine


if he didn't quit, he wouldn't likely be alive today.

he wasnt half the dope head keith was, and keith is still here

bassplayer's on the rag

Keith is a medical marvel.

very true

They had a unique chemistry TOGETHER.
They fed off each other, inspired each other. See SFM Wembley 73 e.g. & MR Brussels 73.
The chemistry was Fiery & Explosive live, while beautifully artistic and creative in the studio.
Other guitarists could have fit, obviously it would have sounded different.
Taylor DID make the Stones great, and others could have also made them great, the two propositions are not mutually exclusive.
The Stones did not "make" Taylor great, it was his talents that were showcased within the environment of their creativity that allowed his contributions to ascend to greatness.
Within the whole, clearly Jagger/Richards are the greater parts, & the guitarist is an indispensable factor to elevate/amplify that greatness.
Your premise "Let me put my premise this way-- Taylor din't make the Stones great -- the Stones made Taylor great" is correct to the extent that Jagger/Richards talents comprised the much greater percentage of the whole. However, the diametric opposition reflected in your premises is not supported by the data.
Now, time for some popcorn.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> S ome Stones fans are peculiarly obsessed with
> this, and I while I enjoy reliving it as memories,
> I do not have an obsessive need to LIVE in that
> time.
>

Against my better judgment, I will weigh in with my views. Partly
because I love music, love the guitar and the Stones are my all time favorite band. Plus, I enjoy reading the viewpoints of other people who share a passion for the band.

The word "obsessed" is probably, for the overwhelming majority of us, misplaced. That having been said it was a particularly prolific period unlike any before or after it. Alot was covered in a short amount of time virtually all of it of an extremely high quality. It was also unique--cause they didn't sound like it before MT joined and they sure didn't sound like it after he left (Except for the Wayne Perkins tunes--which I love).

By the way, my points in this post have nothing to do with Ronnie Wood, Cause I view the Stones as 3 separate bands, all of whom I enjoy for different reasons.


> Yeah, the Stones had a hotshot lead guitarist for
> a few years, but that fit into the time when it
> was fashionable to have a good-looking guitar god.
>
>

"Hot shot" and "good looking guitar god" are cheap shots that, musically, say nothing. MT is/was the most "fluid" guitar player I have ever heard. he combined smoothness with vibrato and an inate sense of what to play that is/was incredibly musical. That kind of playing, if you love rock guitar, doesn't ever go out of "fashion".


> So, after five brief years, he decided to quit,
> and has since eked out an existence.


That one is hard to argue. Of course, again, it has nothing to do with the music.
My view is that it is too bad he wasn't thinking clearly enough to realize that what ever "gripes" he had, the fact was he was the lead guitar player in THE ROLLING STONES! Any career change from that situation was ill advised, monetarily, creatively, and probably several other ways I cannot think of right now. Same goes for Mr Wyman.


>
> Let me put my premise this way-- Taylor din't make
> the Stones great -- the Stones made Taylor great
> -- when hwe quit, he sealed his own fate.



Since when did the concept of "greatness" become mutually exclusive?
In a rock band where songs were put through vigorous jam sessions before going to tape, to discount anyone, let alone a guitarist seems kind of hard to take seriously. By the way, do you like Moonlight Mile, 100 Years Ago, Sympathy From Ya Yas, Time Waits For No One and several dozen others? What do you think of the '72 and '73 Tours? Bottom line is while, yes the Stones were already great when he joined, he helped make them greater. I think MT was already a virtuoso when he joined, I agree---it was with the Stones that he became, as you accurately put it "great".
>
>
>

Let me repeat this to guys like Open-G : when
> Taylor quit the Stones, he sealed HIS fate, not
> the band's.

Yeah, well ok, but so what?



> Your bleatings about his mastery don't cut
> anything with me, man. If Mick and Keith hadn't
> written those songs, your man Mick T would've had
> nothing to play with.

You are entitled to your opinion and that's fine.

>
> On his own, he's nothing. THIS is the part you
> can't reconcile yourself with, isn't it?
>


My grasp of psychology is not nearly firm enough to unravel the meaning of that paragraph.




>
>
> Edited 2 times. Last edit at 02/25/06 02:54 by
> bassplayer617.

bassplayer617 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some Stones fans are peculiarly obsessed with
> this, and I while I enjoy reliving it as memories,
> I do not have an obsessive need to LIVE in that
> time.
>
> Yeah, the Stones had a hotshot lead guitarist for
> a few years, but that fit into the time when it
> was fashionable to have a good-looking guitar god.
>
>
> So, after five brief years, he decided to quit,
> and has since eked out an existence.
>
> Let me put my premise this way-- Taylor din't make
> the Stones great -- the Stones made Taylor great
> -- when hwe quit, he sealed his own fate.

ARE YOU ON THE RAG, MY FRIEND? TAKE SOME MIDOL AND CLEAR OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Let me repeat this to guys like Open-G : when
> Taylor quit the Stones, he sealed HIS fate, not
> the band's.
>
> Your bleatings about his mastery don't cut
> anything with me, man. If Mick and Keith hadn't
> written those songs, your man Mick T would've had
> nothing to play with.
>
> On his own, he's nothing. THIS is the part you
> can't reconcile yourself with, isn't it?
>
>
>
> Edited 2 times. Last edit at 02/25/06 02:54 by
> bassplayer617.




"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are asserting that Mick Taylor didn't
> influence the Stones. So how come much of the
> Stones live set is still, to this day, made up
> from material recorded during his very brief
> period with the band?


Because that's when MICK and KEITH made their best songs. Do you think it's solely because Mick Taylor was in the band?

I like Taylor, but I was always a more Ronnie guy. When he joined they found the golden middle road between Jones and Taylor. And to say that Taylor was great all the time is simply rubbish. Winter sucks for instance. And everybody keep talking about Ronnie butchering one solo after another. Check out Mick Taylor on most live versions of Dead Flowers. That's butchering the entire song. Sure he hits the notes, but playing that lame ass solo all through the song is like listening to 10 straight hours of Van Halen. Hell, I like Ronnie's playing the way it is. If you're at a concert and concentrate on listening for bum notes, you simply don't get enough into the concert. Jeez. I can't imagine just standing there staring dead at the band. GO NUTS!!!!!

JumpingKentFlash

Winter SUCKS?! That's one of the most beautiful solos ever by anyone. Or maybe it's just me, I happen to like good guitar playing, silly me.
BTW, I hate this Ronnie vs. Taylor threads, pointless.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-25 12:39 by Brano.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

-When he joined they found the golden middle road between Jones and Taylor.


Maybe that's the problem he tried to copied them, I think he should used his own style of playing.


By the way, I find him a good guitar player (but not a player with his own sound)




__________________________

I think you can say everything you want, mick taylor brought something to the stones... it's true that he hasn't the carism of ron, keith or mick j., but consider the ablbums studio 69-74 : yes he didn't compose those songs, but they'd not be as beautiful if he hadn't played his part of guitar on them...

he wasn't the leader, but he did a great job when he was a stone - you can not denie it.

Mick Taylor was a great guitarist when he played with the Stones. No doubt about that.
I do love his playing on Winter, Time Waits For No One, Can't You Hear Me Knocking etc.
I also like his versions of Rocks Off and Sway with Carla Olson.
But the point is Taylor left the band over 30 YEARS ago, so just give it a rest, will you!

I can't agree at all with bassplayer617.

The reason Mick Taylor's name is mentioned so often is because it's that aspect he brought to the Stones sound which is missing so much today. If Mick's contribution to the Stones was so small as hinted by bassplayer617 his name wouldn't keep cropping up so frequently.
Mick's personality really isn't compatable with stardom and the rock 'n' roll lifestyle - he's rather shy and sensitive but his talent and his contribution to the Stones achievements in those years should never be slighted.
I can understand Open G and many others who rave about Mick - on those live bootlegs in particular his playing is so beautiful and expressive - i'm almost holding on in anticipation waiting for his next solo. He was truly inspiring.
I think another guitarist in the Mick Taylor mould could have been more beneficial to the Stones than Ronnie and this in turn would maybe satisfy the many fans who keep longing for his return. At the same time though Mick did bring some unique qualities to the Stones sound that another guitarist however technically competant may never quite have been able to recapture.

JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Because that's when MICK and KEITH made their best
> songs. Do you think it's solely because Mick
> Taylor was in the band?
>

His strong musical presence MUST have had a tremendous influence upon their creative powers. After all, when Taylor was with the band, they would jam endlessly, sometimes for weeks on end, until something came out of it.

I would strongly argue the point therefore, that since his departure, creativity has all but dried up.

Of course, the Rolling Stones, as a circus act, are "commercially successful", despite the fact that their post-Taylor legacy includes dross such as Hey Negrita, Lies, Fight, Neighbours, All the Way Down etc, not to mention the latest Bigger Bang tosh. Musically, they haven't been taken seriously since 1973.

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Because that's when MICK and KEITH made their
> best
> > songs. Do you think it's solely because Mick
> > Taylor was in the band?
> >
>
> His strong musical presence MUST have had a
> tremendous influence upon their creative powers.
> After all, when Taylor was with the band, they
> would jam endlessly, sometimes for weeks on end,
> until something came out of it.
>
> I would strongly argue the point therefore, that
> since his departure, creativity has all but dried
> up.
>
> Of course, the Rolling Stones, as a circus act,
> are "commercially successful", despite the fact
> that their post-Taylor legacy includes dross such
> as Hey Negrita, Lies, Fight, Neighbours, All the
> Way Down etc, not to mention the latest Bigger
> Bang tosh. Musically, they haven't been taken
> seriously since 1973.
>
>
Black and Blue, Some Girls Tatoo You Undercover were all better then Goats head soup, I think Taylor did a decent job with them through Exile but the more he became involved with their sound the worst they became. They became for a time like a typical boring 70s rock band with long boring solos , I don't think that ever suited them. I think they improved as a band when Wood joined, they regained the energy and Some Girls is a fantastic album, and even now I think ABB is far more intresting then the IORR album. Give me "Hey Negrita, Lies, Fight, Neighbours," any day before Time waits for no one,





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-25 14:58 by Ket.

I don't agree Ket.
I don't believe Mick Taylor had a massive influence on Mick and Keith's songwriting but i do believe he enhanced much of what they wrote and occasionally took the songs in a different direction.
I don't think Black And Blue, Some Girls and Tattoo You are as good as Goats Head Soup. Athough it did seem a little unfocused at times i always found it to be part of its charm. That can also apply to Exile On Main Street.
Some Girls is more immediate that's for sure but there's not much on offer that exists beneath the surface. I can listen to Goats Head Soup far more frequently without getting bored because there's greater depth.

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Black and Blue, Some Girls Tatoo You Undercover
> were all better then Goats head soup, I think
> Taylor did a decent job with them through Exile
> but the more he became involved with their sound
> the worst they became.


I fully respect your opinions Ket, as well as your tastes, but if these albums are as good as you say, why do the band not perform any songs from them on a regular basis? Apart from Start Me Up and Miss You, and the odd club rendition of Worried about You or Hand of Fate, their setlist portrays them as a shameless oldies band with a sound business plan, based around a semi-authentic exploitation of their legacy.

They're good to jump up and down to I'll admit, but we all stopped actually LISTENING to them donkeys years' ago.

Since Taylor left, to be precise.
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 02/25/06 14:58 by
> Ket.

Well...

Some people need a proper BASIC musical education.

Some people listen to Brussels -73 and smile.

Not a big deal, really.

I started this thread to illustrate a point -- my opinions are no more important than anyone else's, BUT I only had to say it ONCE, NOT go on ad nauseaum in thread after thread after thread.

Also notice that not once did I use the dreaded "v" word that has become the trademark of a particular individual.

Oh, one more thing -- I didn't necessarily state my REAL opinions in my first posting.

That's all. Bye.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-25 19:41 by bassplayer617.

Why on earth not? We have.

I'm not just saying this Cos I know the guy, but LOGIE makes an interesting point about the 'listening quality' of post-Taylor albums. Many of them are lots of fun and may have good groove. sound etc...........but they are relatively shallow. I got into the Stones in '71. I remember the pleasures of just being able to lie in bed late and LISTEN to SF and especially to GHS. Sheer quality. Much of Exile appeals on this level too.

I think there was something special about the Taylor/Jagger approach. Since Taylor left, Jagger has not had the same musically challenging partner in the band and has sought this outside the band.......usually to rather patchy results.

Ronnie is great as Ronnie........ but the Stones lost a dimension to the music when MT quit. One that has not really been replaced. They are mainly good or v good party records. My personal 'listening' albums since GHS are SW and BtB.

I never get the point "M. Taylor was a big part of the Stones golden era". At live shows he may have been, but not so much in the studio if you think about it. Beggar's and Let It Bleed (well almost) were recorded without Taylor. Both these albums come from the golden era.

So his studio contributions from this golden era can only be found on Sticky and Exile... I think everybody agrees Exile's greatness lies in the songwriting power of Mick and Keith... Sure Taylor shines all the way through, but it ain't him that makes this album so great (Charlie and Bill play as good as ever). I'd say Charlie's contributions on Exile might be even more impressive.

So that finally leaves Sticky Fingers... Probably the one album where Mick Taylor contributed the most to the band's sound: Sway, WH, CYHMK, MM, etc. In a superb way obviously.

My conclusion: Mick and Keith were at a creative peak. They wrote some of the finest songs ever... Mick Taylor joined the band and contributed some of the finest guitar playing ever heard of by anyone. Is he overrated? Yes and no. I do think his contributions to the Stones golden era legacy are overrated by many stones fans (although underrated by non stones fans). His skills as a guitar player, both live and in studio remain underrated by many people.

VIBRATO!!!!!!!!!

Rutger,

The live shows were, for many, the crowning glory of the Golden Era.

But you make good points - though ommitted to mention GHS and IORR!

GHS - very golden hues of autumn; largely MT/MJ combo. IORR - some strong musical quality due to MJ/MT combo, but then some rather sub-standard Keith-riff songs (DLS and IYCRM for example).

btw Bill was not on much of Exile.